125
John Doe Provision rejected : Swingers Discussion 83069
Busy Swingers Forum - everything you always wanted to know about swingers.
SwingLifeStyle Swingers Personal Ads. | SwingLifeStyle Swingers Clubs

Busy Swingers Forum

Everything you always wanted to know about swingers.

Create A Free Account

HELP
FORUMSGeneral DiscussionsPoliticsJohn Doe Provision rejected
TOPIC: John Doe Provision rejected
Created by: SensuousAndNasty
Original Starting post for this thread:
From the AP Wire Democrats cut 'John Doe' provision By Audrey Hudson July 19, 2007

Congressional Democrats today failed to include a provision in homeland security legislation that would protect the public from being sued for reporting suspicious behavior that may lead to a terrorist attack, according to House Republican leaders.

"This is a slap in the face of good citizens who do their patriotic duty and come forward, and it caves in to radical Islamists," said Rep. Peter T. King, New York Republican and ranking member of the House Homeland Security Committee.

Republicans wanted the provision included in final legislation, crafted yesterday during a House and Senate conference committee, that will implement final recommendations from the September 11 commission.

Mr. King and Rep. Steve Pearce, New Mexico Republican, sponsored the provision after a group of Muslim imams filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against US Airways and unknown "John Doe" passengers. The imams were removed from US Airways Flight 300 on Nov. 20 after fellow passengers on the Minneapolis-to-Phoenix flight complained about the imams' suspicious behavior.

On March 27, the House approved the "John Doe" amendment on a 304-121 vote.

"Democrats are trying to find any technical excuse to keep immunity out of the language of the bill to protect citizens, who in good faith, report suspicious activity to police or law enforcement," Mr. King said. "I don't see how you can have a homeland security bill without protecting people who come forward to report suspicious activity."

While the conference is not likely to meet again, Mr. King noted the conference report has not been written and says he will continue discussions with Sen. Joe Lieberman, Connecticut independent and chairman of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, to insert the "John Doe" language.

Sen. Susan Collins, Maine Republican and ranking member of the committee, announced afterward she will attempt to attach a similar bill to an education measure currently under debate on the Senate floor. (Continued.......)

GoTo Page: 1 ... More 
 1 to 9 of 9 
User Details are only visible to members.
u have mentioned 1 case and that will not proceed.

"We should not have any measure through our legal system that intimidates people from getting involved."

There is no such measure in our legal system. our legal system says that you are responsible for your conduct as it should be.

also, u did not address the potential for abuse which would be prevented from being addressed by this provision. ----------------------------------------------------- 1. The case is currently proceeding, but I hope you are right that it will be eventually dismissed. I also think giving over the passenger list is a terrible ruling. Yes, it is being appealed, but passengers have already been contacted and harassed which demonstrates the passenger manifest was turned over either before the appeal or without waiting to see what the judgment would be.

2. You are responsible for you conduct, but you say that as if on the defensive and ready to pounce on people that reporting suspicious activity is somehow inappropriate, bad or criminal conduct. Also telling the public that if on an airplane, train, at a concert, a stadium sports event and you view and report suspicious activity you will NOT be protected from a civil suit is a form of intimidation.

3. We already have laws to protect "abuse". Also the language under the John Doe provision was specific in dealing with public transportation concerns, public events where large crowds gather etc. It does NOT protect a person who sits at home, or CONTINUOUSLY calls the police making outlandish claims which harasses the same person or people over and over again ala "crying wolf".

Minden NV
Username hidden
(4041 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
u have mentioned 1 case and that will not proceed.

"We should not have any measure through our legal system that intimidates people from getting involved."

There is no such measure in our legal system. our legal system says that you are responsible for your conduct as it should be.

also, u did not address the potential for abuse which would be prevented from being addresed by this provision.

Philadelphia PA
Username hidden
(5326 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
Sorry Dzzy, I cannot agree with you. The laws against frivolous lawsuits are benign and written in such a manner that they are broadly interpreted, it all depends on the Judge you get. As far as your comment; "how many actual lawsuits will stem out of this "reporting"?", we already have one - the Imams who were reported and removed from the flight from Minneapolis to Phoenix. A judge has not only allowed this lawsuit to continue, but has granted the motion of the complainants (the Imam's lawyers) to receive the passenger list. Former passengers are already complaining about being harassed and accused by the counsel for these Imams of being racist. Only ONE Flight Attendant, who admittedly had family money that allowed her to hire and pay for a high priced attorney has had any case against her dismissed.

Going back to the other thread about Politicians sponsoring or co-sponsoring legislation or bills, this is an example of what I was talking about in not being deceived by that terminology. Joe Biden was one of the “sponsors” of the John Doe language. Yet, right before it was to go forward for a vote, CNN reports that Biden agreed with Reid and Pelosi in removing that protection.

We should not have any measure through our legal system that intimidates people from getting involved. My first 9 years as a Law Enforcement Officer, I worked as a uniform “base” cop in the Air Force. It was the hard line conservative cops who pissed me off the most, complaining about responding to calls in and around the base or “off” base military housing to check out suspicious activity. I viewed it the opposite way, whether we found something or not. Prevention and deterrence are NOT a police responsibility, as police are primarily a response unit. Deterrence and Prevention is a communities responsibility through being INVOLVED. Being able to sue someone for reporting suspicious activity, whether it turns out they may have over reacted or not (and that is a judgment call) is ludicrous. Many of the passengers that at the time spoke up and reported the Imams actions and comments, now say that if they knew they were going to be sued, they would have just changed flights and kept their mouths shut. I find that a dangerous step to silencing freedom of speech and promoting the people to be the eyes and ears of prevention and deterrence.

Minden NV
Username hidden
(4041 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
Doesnt matter to me whatsoever....If I see suspicious behavior I will report it. Sue me LOL not alot to take. If I see a 6'3" Arab at the air port I will scream at the top of my voice.

Saint Louis MO
Username hidden
(12440 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
and i am certainly not "far left" by any stretch.

over the last ten years or so there has been more of an attempt to "ban lawsuits" or reduce access to the courts. it's is ridiculous and in all honestly, how many actual lawsuits will stem out of this "reporting"? about as many as there are flag burning incidents. in reality it's a non issue, issue.

and im sure someone will respond that if it deters one person from reporting, etc. etc but damn those arguements get old.

Philadelphia PA
Username hidden
(5326 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
sen,

i didnt have time to read thru all of ur posts but my initial response is so what.

the courts already have a system in place to get rid of frivilous lawsuits including the filing of sanctions, costs, etc against those who file such lawsuits and second, u don't think there is a potential for abuse by people who have pers. disputes? i.e. I hate my neighbor, therefore i am going to report him...

access to courts is an important part of this country. disputes should be aired in a public courtroom.

and as for frivilous litigation, see the Dragonetti Act in PA.

"A person who takes part in the procurement, initiation or continuation of civil proceedings against another is subject to liability to the other for wrongful use of civil proceedings: (1) He acts in a grossly negligent manner or without probable cause and primarily for a purpose other than that of securing the proper discovery, joinder of parties or adjudication of the claim in which the proceedings are based; (2) The proceedings have been terminated in favor of the person against whom they are brought.

this act may be applied to both the party and the attorney bringing the "bad" case.

Philadelphia PA
Username hidden
(5326 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
Please, understand the provision was supported by the rank and file democrats, along with republicans. It was the leadership of the House and Senate, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, who used their authority to remove the John Doe language before the bill that contained it was even voted on. They released a statement that they believe people should not be protected from reporting what an individual thinks is suspicious because it encourages and is a form of profiling.

IMO Reid and Pelosi are pandering to the far left and the organization CAIR. CNN reported the Joe Biden also supported Reid and Pelosi in removing any protection from lawsuits for those that report suspicious activity or conduct. I was surprised at that as I have always liked and respected Joe Biden.

Minden NV
Username hidden
(4041 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
(.....AP story Continued) Democratic leaders held a press conference with members of the September 11 commission just prior to the conference meeting but did not address the fate of the provision.

“We have always said that any discussion of September 11 in any way, shape or form would be made on sacred ground, with reverence to those who were lost,” said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, California Democrat.

“We promised you answers, and we promised you a safer America. Hopefully, this legislation will fulfill the rest of the promise,” Mrs. Pelosi said.

Rep. Bennie G. Thompson, Mississippi Democrat and chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, initially opposed the legislation, expressing concern that it would lead to racial profiling.

House Republican Leader John Boehner yesterday warned Democrats of a public backlash if the "John Doe" provision is removed.

“That language was put into this bill with broad bipartisan support making it clear that having Americans protected from silly lawsuits if they notice suspicious behavior and report it is just plain common sense," Mr. Boehner said. "And why would they remove that language and I think they are asking for serious trouble if the language is in fact taken out.”

Mr. Pearce said Democrats made a choice as to "whether they are going to side with the American people or with the terrorists."

Florida Rep. Adam Putnam, chairman of the House Republican Conference, said failure to enact the provision will hold "the threat of endless litigation over the heads of the American people."

"Democrats are discouraging citizens from reporting suspicious behavior. And that, simply, leaves America vulnerable to terrorist attacks," Mr. Putnam said.

The imams' lawsuit, seeking unspecified monetary damages, also names the Minnesota Metropolitan Airports Commission. Their claims include false arrest, negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress, defamation, failure to train, conspiracy to discriminate, and negligence.

Mr. Thompson said the conference on the homeland security legislation has been “bipartisan and bicameral.”

“When the 9/11 terrorists attacked us, they really don't ask whether we are black, white, red, yellow. They just want to hurt Americans,” Mr. Thompson said.

The legislation adds personnel, equipment, and funding for aviation and surface transportation security and 100 percent screening for cargo on passenger planes and containers. It also redefines how Homeland Security grants will be distributed.

“No longer will popcorn factories and abandoned dirt bike trails be considered paramount to national security,” Mr. Thompson said.

Minden NV
Username hidden
(4041 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
From the AP Wire Democrats cut 'John Doe' provision By Audrey Hudson July 19, 2007

Congressional Democrats today failed to include a provision in homeland security legislation that would protect the public from being sued for reporting suspicious behavior that may lead to a terrorist attack, according to House Republican leaders.

"This is a slap in the face of good citizens who do their patriotic duty and come forward, and it caves in to radical Islamists," said Rep. Peter T. King, New York Republican and ranking member of the House Homeland Security Committee.

Republicans wanted the provision included in final legislation, crafted yesterday during a House and Senate conference committee, that will implement final recommendations from the September 11 commission.

Mr. King and Rep. Steve Pearce, New Mexico Republican, sponsored the provision after a group of Muslim imams filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against US Airways and unknown "John Doe" passengers. The imams were removed from US Airways Flight 300 on Nov. 20 after fellow passengers on the Minneapolis-to-Phoenix flight complained about the imams' suspicious behavior.

On March 27, the House approved the "John Doe" amendment on a 304-121 vote.

"Democrats are trying to find any technical excuse to keep immunity out of the language of the bill to protect citizens, who in good faith, report suspicious activity to police or law enforcement," Mr. King said. "I don't see how you can have a homeland security bill without protecting people who come forward to report suspicious activity."

While the conference is not likely to meet again, Mr. King noted the conference report has not been written and says he will continue discussions with Sen. Joe Lieberman, Connecticut independent and chairman of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, to insert the "John Doe" language.

Sen. Susan Collins, Maine Republican and ranking member of the committee, announced afterward she will attempt to attach a similar bill to an education measure currently under debate on the Senate floor. (Continued.......)

Minden NV
Username hidden
(4041 posts)
GoTo Page: 1 ... More 
 1 to 9 of 9 
TOPIC: John Doe Provision rejected